The Coalition was desperate to get the GST passed. The GBRMP was part of the deal with the Democrats to get them to vote for it.

So only the specific details are unique? Isn't this kind of a moot point, or am I missing something? Are you perhaps suggesting that only that particular narrow combination of events could lead the coalition to screw the fishing party yet again?

What do you mean yet again? You still haven't explained how the Tassie parks resemble the GBRMP. Another point is the Fishing Party is only contesting a few seats. The campaign is more grassroots. You make it sound like were taking orders from the fishing party.

No matter how grassroots you are, you only have one option for the party's deals regarding senate preferences.

I still don't get how the political situation was in any way unique, other than the details. Are you suggesting it is not possible for the coalition to have motive to screw the party again?

Which party is that?

It was unique because it involved getting a single piece of leglistaion passed. They didn't go to the previous election with the GBRMP expansion as part of the platform. In this case we know what we are voting for with respect to marine parks. Of course you will have to hope the Coalition controls the senate.

It was unique because it involved getting a single piece of leglistaion passed.

So you think the coalition has never before tried to get a single piece of legislation passed before and would never try it again, and that this is the only scenario where they would screw the fishing party over?

Quote:

In this case we know what we are voting for with respect to marine parks.

But you don't. You are being mislead yet again. You think Abbott has promised to halt the marine park expansion when in fact he has promised more marine parks. He has not even offered up anything specific that would allow you to accuse him of breaking promises if you don't like the outcome. All you have gotten is vague waffle that could mean anything in practice.

With the NSW state election, you were also totally confused about what you would have gotten, but you seem to think this doesn't matter because the coalition lost anyway. It does matter, because the coalition sees every single election how easy it is to string the anti marine park lobby along. They see how easy it is to trick them into thinking they are on the same side. If you repeatedly show a politician that all you need is words not actions, what do you think you will get?

In NSW the six Commonwealth 'Areas for further Assessment' are ALL adjacent to NSW State Marine Parks.

The Batemans 'Area' is in the Federal seat of Eden-Monaro held by Labor's, Dr. Mike Kelly. I prepared the following list of questions, with our answers.

Kelly maintains that we have "nothing to worry about" in relation to the 'No Take' zoning .. which we heard from the Labor Government in NSW when the Batemans Marine Park was zoned.

QUESTION:What effect will the Coalitions Marine Park policy have on the area?NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: If the Coalition succeeds on August 21 we expect a moratorium on producing the draft zoning (including ‘No Take’ zoning) in early 2011. We would expect a thorough study into what aspects of the Marine environment are threatened in the ‘Area for further Assessment’, and what it is threatened by. The present proposal by the Labor party will merely draw lines on maps based on a predetermined percentage closure listening to the advice from Minister Peter Garrett, Greenpeace and the PEW Foundation.

QUESTION:What effect would the Greens policy of a 30% fishing closure of Australian Territorial waters have on the local economy?NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: This will be an economic and social catastrophe for the Eden-Monaro electorate.

The Greens appear determined to declare an economic jihad on the South Coast of NSW, as well as all of regional and rural NSW.

Despite Australia having the most sustainable and regulated fishing industry in the world, the Greens have instead listened to the unrepresentative green environment groups and believe the best way to protect fishing is simply to ban it! No thought to the effects of pollution from land, sewerage or agricultural run-off .. The Greens will simply ban fishing .. This simply hoodwinks the public.Measure #20 on their policy document states quite clearly:

20. Ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% ‘no take’ areas per bioregion by 2012.

This means that NSW will have a 440% increase in no take fishing zones. This WILL lead to the closure of the Ulladulla, Bermagui and Eden Fishermen’s Co-ops. Fishermen will have no means to get their catch to the Sydney or Melbourne markets as Fresh fish, hence this completely ecologically sustainable fishery will wither and die after 140 years of existence.

QUESTION:Dr. Kelly has repeatedly stated that the ‘Area for further Assessment’ is simply that. There may NOT be areas that are of significance or require protection, and hence there may not be any closures.NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: The members of the Narooma Port Committee and every fisherman I have spoken to do NOT believe him on this point.

Without any doubt the external boundaries of the ‘Area’ will form the “Commonwealth extension of the Batemans Marine Park”

At a public meeting with Mr. Boxhall and Mr. Martin Russell, from DEWHA, it is patently clear that ‘no take’ zoning would occur within the established boundaries. Recreational, Charter and Commercial fishers were asked to provide details of areas that they ‘couldn’t afford to lose’.

It was also made clear that State Batemans Marine Park ‘sanctuary zones’ that went to the 3nm. Limit would be ideal to continue out into the Commonwealth area as a ‘linking’ or ‘connectivity’ of sanctuary zones. There is NO plausible science in NSW, or even Australia for this assertion.

If Dr. Kelly is so sure on this point then perhaps he could explain why each of the five Commonwealth ‘Areas for further assessment’ in NSW are ALL adjacent to NSW State Marine Parks?Byron, Solitary Islands, Port Stephens, Lord Howe, and Batemans Marine Parks.

QUESTION:Dr. Kelly also has stated that this process was started by the Howard Government in 1998, so Labor in fact is not to blame. NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: He is correct.

However the Marine Protected Area program under the Howard Government started in the South-East Australia region, from the Victorian border around the southern tip of Tasmania to the mouth of the Murray. The ‘Areas’ were established in about 2002 and finalized in 2006.

Much input was done by DAFF, and little by DEWHA

Much consultation was done with Commercial fishers and fair and reasonable compensation figures were established. This continued onto land based industries affected by these Marine Reserves

There is NO Sanctuary zone, closed to recreational fishing, within 100kms of the Coast in the 13 Marine Reserves in Australia’s South-East.

QUESTION:Surely, as has occurred with the South-East Marine Reserve system, there will be an appropriate compensation system in place?NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: One does not even need to do a careful reading of the ‘Displaced Activities” report, available on the DEWHA website, to realise that the Government has commissioned a biased report to decide their policy on that. The report makes it absolutely clear that there is no requirement to compensate Recreational or Charter boat operators or associated businesses .. as these can ‘move’ to non affected areas. Commercial fishers are also due for an unpleasant surprise.

The Federal Labor Government will, as far as is possible, avoid paying compensation to affected industries.

In the case of the Howard Government, restructuring the South East Fishing industry during the South East Marine Reserve system cost about $200million in compensation. Restructuring industry affected by the increase in ‘no take’ zoning on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has cost taxpayers in the order of $240million.

QUESTION:What is the problem with the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) being the lead authority in this issue? NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: As with the NSW Government and its Marine Parks policy there are absolutely NO fishery scientists involved at the level of local Advisory Committees or input into zoning.

DEWHA, as it is a ‘conservation environment’ body, WILL attract environmental zealots, as the NSW DECC and Marine Parks Authority does. Could I refer you to Professor Booth and Assoc. Prof Andy Davis for evidence of that.

Finally the Minister is Peter Garrett. I have not heard of anyone who has confidence in his position or competence to do his job. To put it quite plainly he has been promoted way above his competency level.

It has been shown that he takes an inordinate amount of advice from the Pew foundation, and the Australian Conservation foundation.

Coalition angles for fishing voteGabrielle Dunlevy | 19th August 2010 THE coalition has backed its promise to suspend the creation of marine parks with a $15 million fisheries policy that reaches out to both commercial and recreational anglers.

Concern over the marine parks issue has been evident in coastal seats throughout the election campaign.

An Australian Greens candidate was assaulted at a pro-fishing rally in northern NSW on the weekend and on Tuesday Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was presented with a dead fish by a protester on the NSW south coast.

The Narooma protest came as more than 100 environmental scientists urged the coalition to re-think its plan and return bipartisan support for the reserves, arguing the science behind them was watertight.

Coalition fisheries spokesman Senator Richard Colbeck on Wednesday released a $15.1 million plan, which he said would give greater representation to the fishing sector, Australia's sixth largest primary producer.

Senator Colbeck said Labor had also neglected 3.5 million recreational fishers, who contributed more than $3 billion a year to the economy.

The biggest spend in the policy is a $10 million, five-year fund to invest in sector-wide projects that support the sustainable growth of aquaculture in Australia.

Grants of up to $5500 would go to fishing business operators for advice and training on adapting to climate change, in a $5 million commitment to climate effects.

Industry bodies would get $3 million over four years to promote sustainable fishing, and in line with the coalition's agriculture policy, fisheries would get a dedicated minister and more money for research and development.

For recreational fishing, the coalition would establish a peak body, a ministerial advisory council, and provide $1.2 million over four years for promotion.

Also in the policy was more detail of the plan to put marine parks on hold.

Four advisory panels would be set up to advise on the areas under assessment, in consultation with the community and industry, who would have access to peer-reviewed scientific evidence of threats to marine biodiversity.

The panels would develop socio-economic impact statements for each area, as well as a "displacement policy".

"As a last resort, if such consultation and negotiation does not reduce impacts below levels that are reasonably compensable, then compensation, structural adjustment or other appropriate measures will be delivered before any constraints on fishing are implemented," the policy statement says.

The National Party statement this morning that a coalition government would abolish the Port Stephens Marine Park is a cynical exercise in vote buying, the state’s peak environment group said today.

“The Port Stephens community has really got behind the marine park, recognising the benefits it will have to the area, both environmentally and economically,” Megan Kessler, Marine Networker at the Nature Conservation Council said today.

“A small number of politically interested people have been attempting to split the community by spreading misinformation about the marine parks.

“In fact, the marine park will have many positive impacts on the local area by boosting fish stocks, increasing tourism, and repairing the marine environment.

“The National Party should put the interests of the Port Stephens area above their own short term political interests,” Ms Kessler said.

Batemans Marine Park zoning plan draws mostly positive responseThere has been mostly a favourable reaction to the zoning plan for the big marine park on the New South Wales far south coast, released yesterday by the State Government.

All commercial fishing will be removed from the Batemans Marine Park, which Environment Minister Bob Debus says will pave the way for better access to fishing havens for recreational fishermen and improve the overall conservation of the marine environment.

Recreational fishing will be allowed in 80 per cent of the park, including fishing havens such as Tuross Lake and most of the waters of Montague Island.

Sanctuary zones will cover about 19 per cent of the reserve, habitat areas 43 per cent and general use 37 per cent.

Mr Debus says everyone should benefit from the plan.

"All commercial trawling will be removed from the park and that of course will reduce competition for recreation fishers and protect breeding and nursing for young fish and also commercial netting will be removed from the Clyde River at Batemans Bay at the request of both conservation and recreation fishing groups," he said.

Eurobodalla Mayor and Batemans Marine Park Advisory (MPA) Committee chairman Neil Mumme welcomed yesterday's release of the final zoning plan for the Batemans Marine Park, saying the community now has certainty.

New South Wales Environment Minister Bob Debus presented the final zoning plan to the advisory committee yesterday, ending months of uncertainty about the marine park.

Councillor Mumme says he believes the plan is a balanced outcome that will ultimately benefit residents, visitors and the environment.

He has particularly welcomed the MPA's decision to ban commercial trawl fishing in the park and remove commercial netting from the Clyde River and Durras Lake.

He says the moves will see recreational fishing thrive in the Eurobodalla.

However, the new zones will not come into effect until June next year, allowing council to roll out its $150,000 marketing campaign to inform residents and visitors about the benefits of the marine park.

The NSW Opposition says the Batemans Marine park will be abolished if it wins government in March.

"We don't believe this does anything to help the environment, as a matter of fact we believe it only harms the environment and we would remove it on the very first opportunity we have after being elected to government next March," Opposition fisheries spokesman Duncan Gay said.